Where the Truth Can Be Found

Comment of the week

Your Dallek quote had only one statement from JFK himself: “How could I have been so stupid as to let them proceed?” Not “Dulles betrayed me” — that’s an interpretation, just as it’s an interpretation (opinion) that it was JFK’s “decorum” that led him to praise Dulles highly and refer to him as a friend. IOW, JFK didn’t mean what he said about Dulles, in your view.

Personally I like direct quotes, not interpretations. Arthur Schlesinger’s book on RFK says this:

“Allen Dulles handled himself awfully well, with a great deal of dignity,” Robert Kennedy said of the period after the Bay of Pigs, “and never tried to shift the blame. The President was very fond of him, as I was.”

— Robert Kennedy and His Times, p. 459

Editor’s note – A new comment of the week will be featured each Wednesday.

Share this:

53 comments

I have to be blunt about this. I know I am new here but I see no useful purpose to the debate in the original thread or why Davison’s call for direct quotes in anyway adds to the validity of someone’s opinion about someone else’s opinion. Yes Tom, the ballistics article was a mess but,call me crazy, this comment of the week did not stand out for me at all.

The feelings of Kennedys about Dulles have little to no probitive value regarding Dulles’ feelings about the Kennedys. This is a class of people who take some pride in their manners and civility but paradoxically will wage war with little or no remorse. Officials publically praise other officials. It’s a private club.

The idea of evidence to support argument is method but this is not a science, this is politics and the dirtiest kind at that. Defense and security matters are not an ethical arena. Quotes might be useful for a newspaper story but that is not what we are doing here. Newspapers are filled with endless quotes of officials attesting to the presence of WMD in Iraq but so what? The reportage is accurate but the story is false.

For example, here is a link to first class scholars weighing the validity of Khrushchev quoting Ambassador Dobrynin quoting Robert Kennedy to the effect that the Kennedy’s both feared that the U.S. government was at risk of a military coup in the midst of the Cuban Missile Crisis.http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/moment.htm

Did Khrushchev misunderstand Dobrynin? Was Robert Kennedy sincere or was it a negotiating tactic? The scholars draw cautious conclusions. My point is the quote itself is not evidence for their conclusions, their opinions about the context of the quote is their evidence.

Charles, I concur with your comments and caution us all to better understand the political arena regarding mixed messages. We should consider the intended audience. President Kennedy knew how to cultivate his image in the public’s mind. He was a masterful orator skilled at using the English language. What he said in public may or may not reflect his personal feelings about an event, or person (i.e., the Bay of Pigs). Kennedy publically accepted ultimate responsibility (rightfully) for this CIA planned debacle as President, but personally held CIA head Allen Dulles responsible and accountable. He subsequently fired Dulles, then praised him publically for his service. Another example of restrained civility: neither Kennedy or Hoover ever publically revealed how they felt toward one another; but, privately they openly voiced their views to others. My opinion is both JFK and RFk understood who and what Dulles represented, and the threat Dulles potentially posed if mishandled.

As far as any [ballistics] evidence against Oswald, it is of no legal value and, therefore, not worthy of consideration or arguments for or against Oswald as JFK’s assassin. The Warren/Dulles Report is sheer whitewash predicated on a disinformation campaign designed to divert attention away from the real plotters and mechanics responsible for the Dealy Plaza ambush that felled JFK.

John, could you elaborate on ‘misrepresentation of a source’? Are saying that Dallek misrepresented Kennedy’s opinion of Dulles which was that Kennedy was ‘furious’ and harboured a resentment of having been betrayed by Dulles? Or are you saying that Jean called out my ‘misrepresentation of a source’? Some clarity here please as your comment seems to be out of context and suggests you may not have actually followed the full exchange on that thread.

The primary value of a quote is how it serves as a signpost, not how it reads as a sound bite. “Ask not what your country …” is a signpost to the wider history and circumstances leading to Kennedy’s famous speech, otherwise it was only a pumped up, emotional ploy. “He was very fond of him {Dulles}, as was I” was a sound bite in that debate because it didn’t take into consideration the machinations of Dulles that perhaps even the Kennedys were unaware.

I argued (paraphrasing) that promoting the quote failed to acknowledge the decorum that most powerful politicians adopt in public, and that it could well have been the author’s own attempt at protecting the Kennedys and the dark history with Allen Dulles and the CIA. A quid pro quo perhaps. As we don’t have access to the private utterances of any of these men, are we left with only vapid arguments and quotes as sound bites and a refusal by some to take risks intended to ‘flesh out’ the dynamics? Without a fierce and good faith debate, this forum becomes a podium for the Warren Commission conclusions.

There’s certainly nothing vapid however in the following story related to Secretary of State Dean Rusk’s firing of Allen Dulles’ sister, Eleanor, indicating Kennedy was furious enough to let it spill over to Dulles’ family … and it includes a ‘quote.’

from ‘The Victoria Advocate’, June 1, 1989, by Georgia Anne Geyer

‘When President John Kennedy wanted to remove Allen Dulles from the CIA in 1961 because of the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion, Kennedy also asked Secretary of State Dean Rusk, by the way, to get rid of Eleanor because of her brother. “Rusk actually said that to me,” she said. (Quote and Unquote.)

I would like to point out that the Dulles/Kennedy debate ensued just as David Talbot’s “The Devil’s Chessboard” was being launched. Talbot and Hardway both were compelled to argue about the June ’64 audiotape rather than flesh out and fully enjoy the success of Talbot’s seminal efforts toward exposing Allen Dulles, at least on this site. I would like to have heard more from them. Interesting timing. Btw, Hardway did an excellent piece challenging that ’64 conversation. The debate also interrupted serious analysis of John McCone’s role in diverting the Warren Commission investigation. More interesting timing.

QUOTE:I would like to point out that the Dulles/Kennedy debate ensued just as David Talbot’s “The Devil’s Chessboard” was being launched. Talbot and Hardway both were compelled to argue about the June ’64 audiotape rather than flesh out and fully enjoy the success of Talbot’s seminal efforts toward exposing Allen Dulles, at least on this site. I would like to have heard more from them. Interesting timing. Btw, Hardway did an excellent piece challenging that ’64 conversation. The debate also interrupted serious analysis of John McCone’s role in diverting the Warren Commission investigation. More interesting timing.UNQUOTE

If you’re referring to me, the “interesting timing” exists only in your imagination.

According to Google, I first mentioned the June ’64 audiotape in reply to a poster who said the idea that RFK had recommended Dulles for the WC was “lunacy” and a “whopper of a lie.” My point was that since RFK had recommended Dulles for a different assignment in Mississippi, maybe the WC claim wasn’t so preposterous after all.

Jean, given the impact your book has had on the American psyche – published on the 20th anniversary, reissued on the 50th, and currently touted on Amazon as “the first book to challenge conspiracy theories and revela (sic) how Oswald was politically motivated to assassinate the President “, you must appreciate that anything you present here is suspect at least for those of us who grasp the negative effect the cover up continues to have on our country.

Having read the passage in David Talbot’s new book in which he recounts Allen Dulles’ personal correspondence with historian Rebecca West that he just wished someone like her would pen an account of Oswald’s motive, I grew all the more alarmed. Did you by osmosis take up Dulles’ gauntlet and write what far too many uninformed readers consider the definitive on Oswald’s motive?

Any prosecution of Oswald would have faltered without an argument as to motive. You came along (and as your publisher claims) and revealed Oswald’s political motive that filled in the embarrassing gap in Dulles’ Warren Commission legacy. Your publisher, WW Norton, some decades later saw fit to publish Mr. Bugliosi’s tome as well; his editor opined that the book would hammer the nails into the coffin of every conspiracy theory (paraphrasing). I read a pattern.

So whether or not JFK and/or RFK had amicable relationships with Allen Dulles, whether or not your timing was deliberate when you re-posted the June, 1964 audio is secondary to the fundamental question: “What was Oswald’s motive for ‘spontaneously’ assassinating President Kennedy?” The Warren Commission could not come up with an answer; it took you to fill in that blank.

My 1983 book had zero “impact” on “the American psyche.” It sold very few copies and was long out-of-print. Your view of its impact is bizarre. Many writers have speculated about Oswald’s motives, including the HSCA’s final report.

“My 1983 book had zero “impact” on “the American psyche.” It sold very few copies and was long out-of-print. Your view of its impact is bizarre.” – Jean Davison

Then perhaps you will contact whoever is responsible for the blurb on Amazon and have them adjust this assertion: “the FIRST BOOK (emphasis mine) to challenge conspiracy theories and revela (sic) how Oswald was politically motivated to assassinate the President.” (note: the HSCA report was not promoted commercially nationwide by WW Norton.)

As far as I know, the arguments you present on any JFK forum carry weight first and foremost because of your reputation as an author. Following that, your familiarity with and or capacity to extract Warren Commission data is impressive, as far as it goes, but when confronted with fresh data that contradicts yours and the commission’s conclusions that Oswald was a lone nut, you either disappear or you spin the tables and cry foul with ‘how dare you attack me personally.’ It would be impossible to challenge your position without the occasional appearance of challenging you personally but be assured that if Saint Theresa of Avila had lived in our times and penned a similarly speculative book about Oswald’s motive that not only perpetuated the highly flawed Warren Commission conclusion but also served it by filling in the gap, I would severely question and criticize her work not to mention her “motive”; if Theresa took offense then so be it.

Would you state here, unequivocally, that you believe Oswald – in a spontaneous act – was the sole perpetrator of the assassination because of his strong political views that conflicted with those of John Kennedy?

The following are but three samples among hundreds of the impact of “Oswald’s Game” on the American psyche. We can think of this as the ripple effect if as Jean argues book sales weren’t particularly impressive:

“This coming November will mark the 25th anniversary of the release of Jean Davison’s outstanding 1983 book “OSWALD’S GAME”. In acknowledgment of that approaching quarter-century anniversary, I’d like to once again say “thank you” to Jean for her exemplary book, which offers up just about as good a biography on President Kennedy’s assassin as you’re likely to find anywhere. — David Von Peinhttps://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/WeAQLhckvnA

“The following is from the autobiographical “Introduction” to Jean Davison’s OSWALD’S GAME, pp. 17-19. It tells of her initial experiences researching the assassination.” — John McAdamshttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane2.txt

Last year on this site, I took note of Jean Davison’s skilled exercise at an unbiased approach to her research that just happened to dovetail with the Warren Commission’s conclusions (and by the way in the process she came up with ‘motive’}:

I would like to play along. It says if I am reading this correctly at this late hour, that you prefer direct quotes. Okay. Here is one. Jesse Curry, speaking in 1969, “no one has been able to place that man in that building with that gun yet.”

Can you explain this passage from Mr. Sibert, who was present at the autopsy?

Sibert: Well I-that single-bullet theory-when they had me come up to the ARRB deposition there at College Park, I said, “Well before I come up there, I want you to know one thing. I’m not an advocate of the single-bullet theory.” I said, “I don’t believe it because I stood there two foot from where that bullet wound was in the back, the one that they eventually moved up to the base of the neck. I was there when Boswell made his face sheet and located that wound exactly as we described it in the FD 302.” And I said, “Furthermore, when they examined the clothing after it got into the Bureau, those bullet holes in the shirt and the coat were down 5 inches there. So there is no way that bullet could have gone that low then rise up and come out the front of the neck, zigzag and hit Connally and then end up pristine on a stretcher over there in Dallas.”

Curry said different things at different times. IMO it doesn’t matter what he said, either time. He was giving his opinion about what the evidence showed, but we can evaluate the same evidence for ourselves, so who needs his opinion?

I saved that 1963 quote because I don’t recall ever seeing anyone mention *that* one, just the one from 1969.

So, if I am reading your response correctly, it is left to the individual to decide which direct quote carries the most weight? If that is the case, then your observation that RFK was fond of Allen Dulles is open to question? Because it appears, on the surface, that there is a double standard at work again in this case. If your words are to be believed, “personally I like direct quotes, not interpretations.’ Well, I have given you several direct quotes, and your response is that Jesse Curry, who actually worked on the “investigation’ (and I use that term quite loosely) does not matter. If that is the case, then why does what RFK say about Dulles matter? Why does what Humes say about the autopsy matter, because Sibert directly contradicts the “official version” of the magic bullet scenario? The evidence, which you point to, clearly would favor Sibert, if we are to use Kennedy’s jacket as a starting point.

I am curious as to why you would state that you prefer direct quotes? I think what you meant to say is you prefer direct quotes if they enhance a predetermined point of view. Would that be an accurate statement?

If I accept that Oswald was a master troublemaker/sociopath who somehow evaded any real concern from the various government agencies he caught the attention of, and he was clever enough to pull off the assassination by himself:

Why do you think the CIA hid the very existence of George Joannides and his relationship with the DRE from investigators for 40 years and why do they continue to refuse to give up his files today?

I think you’ve misunderstood what I’m saying about direct quotes. If I want to know what A said to B in a phone conversation, a transcript or audio tape is obviously much better than an author’s interpretation of what was said.

IOW, why should I accept an author’s opinion that JFK was angry with Dulles when there are direct quotes from JFK and his brother indicating the opposite? I don’t care one way or the other whether JFK despised Dulles or not, I’d just like to see evidence for it, not someone’s opinion.

Agent Sibert is certainly entitled to his opinion about the SBT, but I don’t think that’s the best evidence here, either. The autopsy photo shows that the back wound is higher than the holes in JFK’s clothes. I’ll take a photo over someone’s memory.

I don’t know why the CIA hasn’t released those files or even what reason it has given, if any. Government agencies seem generally reluctant to release classified documents. I remember years ago I saw this title in a list of unreleased files at the National Archives: “Lee Harvey Oswald’s Access to Classified Information About the U-2.” That certainly piqued my interest! It was finally declassified in 1993 and you can read it here (4 pages):

“Why did CIA HQ deliberately omit Oswald’s NO activities to the MC station, showing a “keen interest” in him six weeks before the assassination, as Jane Roman said?”

I have no idea. I don’t know that anything was “deliberately” omitted or even that the CIA or FBI was especially interested in him, despite Roman’s later comment. What difference would it have made if HQ had told MC about Oswald’s activities in New Orleans?

Sure, everything Oswald did may seem important *NOW*, but no one can foresee the future. I could be wrong, of course. I’m giving my opinion because you asked.

“The autopsy photo shows that the back wound is higher than the holes in JFK’s clothes. I’ll take a photo over someone’s memory.”~Jean Davison

We went over this before…’round & ’round actually.

This is a matter of visual acuity, and the recognition that skin has the ability to stretch. It is obvious from that photo you refer to that the skin of the back is being pushed up by the hands, while the flesh of the neck is accordioned from the head being pushed back in an unnatural fashion.If you can read the underlying anatomy of the bony structure in this picture, you can see that exactly what I describe is true; the skin is pulled up and stretched from the position of the outer edge of the scapula. Meanwhile the shoulder is being pushed downward, to give the illusion that the wound is higher than it is.http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QfsQW0gVsl8/UolUnPbdgII/AAAAAAAAw3k/YzyrV14nCX4/s1600/00e.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg\\][//

“I have no idea. I don’t know that anything was “deliberately” omitted or even that the CIA or FBI was especially interested in him, despite Roman’s later comment. What difference would it have made if HQ had told MC about Oswald’s activities in New Orleans?”

I believe that oversight resulted in Oswald being removed from the FBI security watch list.

He told interviewer Tom Johnson that he was not convinced that Lee Harvey Oswaldkilled Kennedy: “We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody’s yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand.”

Can you respond to this direct quote from David Slawson, the man charged with investigating the CIA and the assassination:

Slawson’s most startling conclusion: He now believes that other people probably knew about Oswald’s plans to kill the president and encouraged him, raising the possibility that there was a conspiracy in Kennedy’s death—at least according to the common legal definition of the word conspiracy, which requires simply that at least two people plot to do wrongdoing. “I now know that Oswald was almost certainly not a lone wolf,” Slawson says.

“Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there. Get someone up in the railroad yard and check.” — Jesse Curry, Dallas Police Radio Transmission, 22-Nov-63, 12:30pm

After viewing the Zapruder film, Curry came to the conclusion that Connally and the President had been hit by separate bullets. He told interviewer Tom Johnson that he was not convinced Oswald killed Kennedy: “We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody’s yet been able to put him in the building with a gun in his hand.” Jesse Curry, JFK Assassination File, 1969

He told interviewer Tom Johnson that he was not convinced that Lee Harvey Oswaldkilled Kennedy: “We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody’s yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand.”

Will that satisfy you?================================================

Sorry Steve, but that is actually worse. Your original quote was close to what Curry said but it was not a direct quote. It wasn’t my intent to nitpick about it. I had a valid point that I wanted to make and now you’ve just done it for me. Nowhere in that Tom Johnson article will you find “We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.”

Whether what Curry said in 69 was worse for you, better, up, down or sideways does not matter one whit to me. You believe the WO report. I do not. So what you think does not, nor will ever, matter to me. You can disagree with me and vice versa as this is still America. The best of luck to you.

I too would like to point out that the Dulles/Kennedy debate ensued just as David Talbot’s “The Devil’s Chessboard” was being launched.

Jean Davison claims she brought up the issue of the tape in 2013. and thus mentioning it again in 2015 should not be read as having any sinister intent to distract from the launch of Talbot’s new book.

I read it that way. I read every comment here by Jean Davison as a calculated effort to distract from the effort to discover the truth about the Kennedy assassination.\\][//

“Of course you do. No truth to it, but who needs evidence when suspicion is calling the shots?”~Jean Davison

Jean there are varying degrees of “suspicion”, there is unjustified suspicion, such as groundless intuition, pure guesswork without foundation, etc.

There is in contrast justified suspicion, based on the same sets of reasoning as any other forensic reasoning.

MO, being one of the strongest in this suite of prognostication; Modus Operandi — your “method of operation”.

The similarity of your MO to the hallmark MO of Agent Provocateurs of the State.The first and most flagrant act indicating one of these hallmarks being your amateur “Psychological Profile” of Lee Harvey Oswald.

As to my assertion that this is an amateur diagnosis. I once asked you if you had any training in Psychology, or Psychiatry. Your answer was (paraphrased): “None, I don’t need any.” And yet the pretense is clear in your book, that you somehow have the skills to adequately assess the psychology of Lee Harvey Oswald.

To now suggest that your book is simply a disingenuous hit piece against Oswald’s character, is certainly an unfounded suspicion. That suspicion is firmly based in the fact of you writing a tome of pseudo-intellectual hogwash.

This is a firm foundation for suspicion as to your agenda here on this forum.[This comment is per decorum; stated as my personal opinion]\\][//

“You seem to think that your objection to something I wrote 23 years ago makes me an “Agent Provocateur of the State.” You call that evidence?”~Jean Davison

No Jean, I find your continued apologia for the Warren Commission Report to be such evidence.Your continued insistence that Oswald was the shooter that killed Kennedy, in the face of so many facts and well reasoned arguments pertaining to those facts. THAT, which is a current day activity, coupled with your history up to now.\\][//

No Jean, I find your continued apologia for the Warren Commission Report to be such evidence. Your continued insistence that Oswald was the shooter that killed Kennedy, in the face of so many facts and well reasoned arguments pertaining to those facts. THAT, which is a current day activity, coupled with your history up to now.UNQUOTE

Right. I disagree with you about the JFK assassination and that makes me an Agent Provocateur.

I don’t know why you think her comment warrants this honor. I find it hard to believe that anyone in this day and age would place any value on the prepared pronouncement of a public official. If one is searching for the truth, the unguarded comment to a close confidant is much more reliable. Expecting or demanding a direct quote in this context is absurd. It’s as naive as Earl Warren being shocked that FBI or CIA agents would lie under oath.

“Vigilance demands we question the allegiances and alliances of the experts (pertaining to JFK evidence). How do you know a ruse has been perpetrated on the citizens? When it collapses in on itself from not being able to support the burden of proof. The Warren/Dulles Omission accused, then convicted Oswald post mortem, as the killer of JD Tippit and JFK. Evidentiary rules don’t apply to a dead man, especially when a political solution, rather than a legal solution to the crime is embraced.” – Kennedy63